Can someone please explain to me why the Voter ID thing is an issue?

I understand that Democrats think that this will drive their turnout down among the poor who--they assume--are less able to get the req'd ID and bring it with them on Election Day.

But, apart from that political motive, does anybody think this is a bad idea? I need an ID to get money from the bank, my kid from day care or school, etc.

Why would we protect our votes with any less vigilance than we protect our children or our money?

In the age of rampant identity theft and razor-thin elections, you would think we would be embracing such efforts (provided they come with sufficient assistance to ensure that the "disadvantaged"--or whatever group we think will have trouble getting the ID--are given the boost they need to get and use the ID).

Just wondering.

Wells:

Since the birth of democracy upon these shores there has always been one group working to disenfranchise another. Originally, black Americans were considered only three-fifths a person, and only that to appease southern slave-holding states wanting greater representation. Ultimately, we fought a war from which black Americans were freed from their bonds of servitude and the men were granted the right to vote. Even then, there were poll taxes, poll tests, and other methods ensure that, while they had the legal right to vote, they were not able to exercise it.

The black women freed along with their brothers, husbands, sons, and fathers would have to wait another 70 years, along with white women, to have their franchise fully established.

Even today, when there is a debate in the great houses of our Congress over whether or not to extend the coverage to the disenfranchised through the Voting Rights Act, there are those that would work at nothing but ensuring that their bretheren are not allowed the basic rights afforded to all citizens by our Constitution.

So you ask why placing a blockade between a person and the sweet liberty of voting is at issue. To which I say, until the day when all peoples are able to let their Governments know their will through open, free, and fair elections, we must not put any blockades between those people and their voice.

It has been explained repeatedly. The primary opposition is to requiring a photo ID that requires essentially three underlying ID forms, two of which may well cost you money.

While the state is saying it can provide free IDs, the underlying documentation is not free and isn't always easy to get.

The general assumption that people have that their lives reflect that of the poor and/or disabled is a pretty poor assumption. Not everyone lives a life of a checking account and decent child care. Many people don't have typical sources of income and don't drive. They don't have a strong need for photo ID because they use check cashing stores, not banks.

The sheer gulf between their lives and most people on blogs is hard for people to grasp.

There are relatively easy alternatives including bills addressed to the individual at a specific address.

Furthermore, what evidence do we have that such a requirement would reduce fraud. Most fraud occurs in a couple categories:

Vote buying like in East Saint Louis
Fake Registrations as a result of vote drives by companies usually paying per signature

Beyond that the next most likely appears to be cross state voting.

None of the three problems above would be solved by requiring picture voter identification.

So then the question is how many people will be disenfranchised versus how many fake votes will be stopped. Well, we know that some of the poorest and disabled in our society will have a hard time meeting the standard, but we don't have evidence of widespread fraud that couldn't be stopped with an official bill or voter ID card as they currently exist.

What about all the fake ID's used at bars. Have the laws implemented last year kept any teens out of bars?